Supreme Court Will Review Public Health Air Quality Standards

Environmental Defense applauded the Supreme Court’s decision today to review a lower court ruling that directed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise its national health-based clean air standards for smog and fine, sooty particles. The standards were designed to protect millions of Americans from the serious health effects associated with these pollutants, including death and hospitalization of the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease, decreased lung function in children with asthma, and other serious respiratory ailments. Today’s decision sets the stage for the Supreme Court to rule on one of the most important and controversial clean air cases in history.

“The lower court decision turned back EPA’s clean air health standards by disregarding more than a half century of Supreme Court precedent and thirty years of national clean air policy. What’s at stake is a critical national program to protect our children, the elderly and our communities from harmful air pollution,” said Environmental Defense senior attorney Vickie Patton. “The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case is very encouraging.”

The US Government recently asked the Supreme Court to review the controversial lower court decision sending back to EPA its new national public health standards for smog and sooty, fine particles, which pose particular risks to children, the elderly, and those who are ill. In a split decision, the lower court reasoned that the EPA’s interpretation of its legal authority was unconstitutional — even though the lower court unanimously determined that the EPA had ample scientific basis for its action.

“The lower court decision would undermine the long-standing authority of EPA and other expert agencies to make the day-to-day decisions necessary to protect the health and safety of all Americans,” said Environmental Defense senior attorney Joe Goffman. “It’s not at all surprising the Supreme Court decided to take a hard look at this problematic decision.”